Bangalore District Court
State By J.P. Nagar Police Station vs No. : 1. Venkatesh.K.E on 4 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2017
:PRESENT:
Smt. Mala N.D., B.A.L., LL.B.,
44th ACMM, Bengaluru
C.C.No.3560/2015
Complainant : State by J.P. Nagar Police station
(By Asst.Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused No. : 1. Venkatesh.K.E.
S/o Eregowda,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Kithoor village,
Gundehalli Post,
Belur Taluk, Hassan District.
2. Dinesh,
S/o Sannallaiah,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at Kallanakere,
Gollarahatti,
Dwarakanahalli Post,
Thuruvekere.
3. Bhimsi.M.N.
S/o Mahadevappa,
Aged about 25 years,
2 C.C. No.3560/2015
R/at Girisagar Beelagi,
Taluk, Bagalkote District.
4. Shankar.B.K.
S/o Jayakumar,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.18, 6th Cross Road,
1st Main Road,
Gururaj Layout, Doddanakkundhi,
Marathhalli, Bengaluru.
5. R. Rajesh,
S/o K.G. Rangappa,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.264, 4th Main Road,
2nd Cross Road, P.C. Extension,
Kolar.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of J.P. Nagar Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/s.341, 363, 342, 394, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is alleged that, on 22/01/2014 at about 9.30 a.m. in the morning, C.W. 1 Sri. M.D. Javid along with C.W. 2 Sri. Javid Pasha and C.W. 3 Sri. Mohammed Suhel were going in an auto rickshaw 3 C.C. No.3560/2015 bearing No.KA-01-AC-497 in front of R.V. Dental College signal, situated at 24th Main, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru, within the limits of J.P. Nagar Police Station, accused persons being police officials in furtherance of their common intention, stopped the said auto rickshaw, asked C.W. 1 to 3 to get down from the auto, forcibly took them in an Innova car bearing registration No.KA-03-D-6512, took them behind junk sheet shed situated at Sy.No.28, Kariyammanna Agrahara, in front of New Horizon college, Kadubeesanahalli, within the limits of HAL Police Station, parked the aforesaid Innova car, wrongfully confined C.W. 1 to 3, assaulted C.W. 1 by their hands, posed threat to them by saying that, they will implicate them in 302 of IPC case by demanding Rs.10 lakhs, for which they expressed their inability to pay the amount, thereafter, having left with no other option C.W. 1 expressed his willingness to pay Rs.3 lakhs, as such, C.W. 1 called C.W. 9 Smt. Shamshad Begum over phone, informed her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs, accordingly, C.W.9 gave Rs.3 lakhs to the accused persons at about 5 p.m. in the 4 C.C. No.3560/2015 evening, later, C.W. 1 to 3 were set free by accused persons.
Therefore, C.W. 1 lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police.
As such, this case came to be registered against accused No.1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, I.O.
visited the place of incident, conducted spot mahazar in the presence of witnesses, seized Innova car and subjected the same under P.F. No.60/2015, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
3. The accused No.1 to 5 are on bail and they are represented through their counsel.
4. The copies of the prosecution papers have been furnished to the accused persons as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec. 341, 363, 342, 394, 506 r/w 34 of IPC has been taken as per Sec.190 of Cr.P.C.
5. The charge is framed, contents of charge have been read over and explained to the accused persons in the language known to 5 C.C. No.3560/2015 them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution is called upon to prove its case.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined twelve witnesses as P.W. 1 to 12 and got marked seventeen documents at Ex.P.1 to P.17. Inspite of issuing summons and warrants against other witnesses, none of them have been secured before this court. Therefore, the evidence of remaining witnesses has been dropped by rejecting the prayer of the prosecution.
7. Thereafter, the statement of accused persons as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, wherein they have denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and have not chosen to lead their defense evidence. Hence, posted for arguments.
8. Heard both the sides and perused the material evidence on record.
9. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on 22/01/2014 at about 9.30 a.m. in the morning, C.W. 1 Sri. 6 C.C. No.3560/2015 M.D. Javid along with C.W. 2 Sri. Javid Pasha and C.W. 3 Sri. Mohammed Suhel were going in an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-01-AC-497 in front of R.V. Dental College signal, situated at 24th Main, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru, within the limits of J.P. Nagar Police Station, accused persons being police officials in furtherance of their common intention, stopped the said auto rickshaw, asked C.W. 1 to 3 to get down from the auto, forcibly took them in an Innova car bearing registration No.KA-03-D-6512 and thereby wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 to 3 from proceeding further and committed an offence punishable U/s.341 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, accused persons forcibly abducted C.W. 1 to 3 in the aforesaid Innova car and took them behind junk sheet shed situated at Sy.No.28, Kariyammanna Agrahara, in front of New Horizon college, Kadubeesanahalli, within the limits of HAL Police Station and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.363 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in 7 C.C. No.3560/2015 furtherance of their common intention, abducted C.W. 1 to 3 in Innova car, parked the aforesaid Innova car, wrongfully confined C.W. 1 to 3, assaulted C.W. 1 by their hands and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.342 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their intention, abducted C.W. 1 to 3 in Innova car, took them behind junk sheet shed situated at Sy.No.28, Kariyammanna Agrahara, in front of New Horizon college, Kadubeesanahalli, wrongfully confined them, assaulted C.W. 1 by their hands, posed threat to them by saying that, they will implicate them in 302 of IPC case by demanding Rs.10 lakhs, for which they expressed their inability to pay the amount, thereafter, having left with no other option C.W. 1 expressed his willingness to pay Rs.3 lakhs, as such, C.W. 1 called C.W. 9 Smt. Shamshad Begum over phone, informed her to bring Rs. 3 lakhs, accordingly, C.W.9 gave Rs.3 lakhs to the accused persons at about 5 p.m. in the evening, later, C.W. 1 to 3 were set free by accused persons and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.394 r/w of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the 8 C.C. No.3560/2015 aforesaid date, time, place and under aforesaid circumstances, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, abducted C.W. 1 to 3 in Innova Car, wrongfully confined them and posed threat to them by saying that, they will implicate them in 302 of IPC case and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506 r/w 34 of IPC?
6. What Order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.2 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.3 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.4 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.5 : IN THE NEGATIVE Point No.6 : As per final order for the following REASONS
11. Points No.1 to 5: All these points involve similar set of facts and circumstances, hence, taken up together for common discussion.
9 C.C. No.3560/2015
12. In this case, the prosecution has cited as many as 34 persons as witnesses and successful in examining only 12 persons. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, C.W. 1 to 3 were abducted by the accused No.1 to 4 at the instigation of accused No.5 and were demanded ransom of Rs.10 lakhs by confining them in a room and also by threatening them to implicate in a murder case, if they do not fulfill their demands.
13. In this connection, prime material witnesses are Mohammed Javid, Javid Pasha and Mohammed Suhel Pasha who were said to be abducted by the accused persons for ransom. On the contrary, these three persons who are examined as P.W. 1, 3 and 5 have completely turned hostile by denying the entire case of prosecution. On the other hand, they have stated that, due to trivial reasons, there were some exchange of words. As such, out of anger they had lodged this complaint against accused persons. Admittedly, all these accused persons are police officials. Therefore, prosecution treated these witnesses as hostile and chosen to cross-examine 10 C.C. No.3560/2015 them. Whereas, nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross- examination.
14. Similarly, another witness Smt. Shamshad Begum who is said to have made the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs to the accused on the basis of phone calls by C.W. 1, has also not supported the prosecution. Thus, all the prime witnesses have completely turned hostile.
15. Similarly, C.W. 6 Sri. Govindaraju, C.W. 21 Sri. Mahadev who are mahazar witnesses have completely turned hostile about drawing of mahazar by the I.O. Even they have pleaded their ignorance about the contents of mahazar.
16. In addition, C.W. 8 Akram Pasha, C.W. 7 Jiaulla have also turned hostile and pleaded their ignorance about entire incident. When things stood thus, C.W. 4 who is examined as P.W. 7 who was the then Deputy Commissioner Of Police, has spoken about the accused persons and also lodging of complaint against these accused persons by C.W. 1. It is stated by this witness that, C.W. 1 has 11 C.C. No.3560/2015 directly lodged complaint before him against the accused persons. As such, he has referred the same to I.O. for further action. According to this witness, accused No.1 to 5 have admitted their guilts before him. On the other hand, no corroborative evidence is forth coming in support of the evidence of this witness. In the cross-examination, it can be noticed that, the J.P. Nagar Police Station was not coming within the jurisdiction of this officer. It can also be noticed that, this witness has not issued prior notice to call upon these accused to give their explanation about the alleged incident. Admittedly, this witness is the superior officer of the accused persons. Since there is no corroboration to the evidence of this witness, his sole evidence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused persons when the prime witnesses have completely turned hostile.
17. In addition, I.O. has spoken about drawing of spot mahazar and recording of statements of mahazar witnesses. As it is discussed above, even the evidence of I.O. suffers from corroboration as the mahazar witnesses have completely turned hostile. This I.O. has 12 C.C. No.3560/2015 spoken about bank statements and CCTV footages to establish that C.W. 9 at the instigation of C.W. 1 has drawn amount and made payment to the accused. Since the person who is said to have drawn the amount in the ATM has turned hostile and has not spoken anything about the alleged incident, it would not be appropriate to arrive at the conclusion that, accused are guilty minded only on the evidence of official witnesses among them one is Superior Officer and another one is investigation officer.
18. No independent witnesses are forth coming to establish the prosecution case. It is true that, the police department is known for discipline and violation of the same should not be tolerated in any manner. At the same time, without sufficient material evidence it would be against the principles of natural justice to hold the accused as guilty minded only for the reason that they belong to police department. More importantly, the persons who are said to be the victims in this case have not supported the prosecution case which became a fatal blow. Under the circumstances, based on the 13 C.C. No.3560/2015 evidence of official witnesses it would not be proper to say that, the prosecution has proved its case against accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent, convincing and corroborative evidence. Therefore, from the available material evidences, this court cannot hold that, accused No.1 to 5 are guilty of the offences punishable under Section 341, 363, 342, 394, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer Points No.1 to 5 in the Negative.
19.Point No.6: In view of the negative findings on the above points No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 363, 342, 394, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
Interim custody of Innova car seized and subjected under P.F. No.60/2014 to the applicant is made absolute. (Dictated to the Stenographer through computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of March 2017).
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
14 C.C. No.3560/2015ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION PW-1: M.D. Javeed PW-2: Akram Pasha PW-3: Mohammed Suhel Pasha PW-4: Shamshad Begum PW-5: Javeed Pasha PW-6: Jiaulla PW-7: T.D. Pawar PW-8: Govindaraju PW-9: Mahadev PW-10: Yeshwanth Savarkar PW-11: Basavaraju Pereddy PW-12: Manjunath.A.R.
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION Ex.P. 1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of P.W. 7 Ex.P. 2 : Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of P.W. 8 Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of P.W. 10 Ex.P.3 : Statement of P.W. 2 Ex.P.4 : Statement of P.W. 3 Ex.P.5 : Statement of P.W. 4 Ex.P.6 : Statement of P.W. 5 Ex.P.7 : Statement of P.W. 6 Ex.P.8 : Statement of P.W. 8 Ex.P.9 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of P.W. 9 Ex.P.9(b) : Signature of P.W. 10 15 C.C. No.3560/2015 Ex.P.10 : Statement of P.W. 9 Ex.P.11 : Mahazar Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of P.W. 10 Ex.P.12 : Mahazar Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of P.W. 10 Ex.P.13 : Mahazar Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of P.W. 10 Ex.P.14 : Copy of 'B' register extract Ex.P.15 : FIR Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of P.W. 12 Ex.P.16 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.16(a) : Signature of P.W. 12 Ex.P.17 : Report
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION NIL (Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
16 C.C. No.3560/2015posted for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by 20/02/2017.
XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
Accused No.1 to 5 are present.
Statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, they have denied the incriminating evidence adduced against them and not chosen to lead their side defense evidence, hence, it is posted for arguments.
Hence, heard both sides and posted for judgment by 04/03/2017.
XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
17 C.C. No.3560/2015(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separately) ORDER Acting U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty and acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 341, 363, 342, 394, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail & bail bond of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled.
Interim custody of Innova car seized and subjected under P.F. No.60/2014 to the applicant is made absolute.
(Mala N.D) XLIV Addl.C.M.M., B'lore.
18 C.C. No.3560/2015